The Resurrection of Jesus is historically probable

My dad was a minister so I know the many stories of the New Testament.

I believe ( not proof though) Jesus spirit ( not body) rose after the third day to people, both believers and non believers.

The proof you speak of are stories though, nothing more.

In a court of law there may be stories that can prove one way or another but scientifically speaking there is zero proof unless you go by accounts of
nde or obe or anything else that is considered paranormal and even then cannot prove or disprove Jesus spirit was shown waaaaay back in a day none of
us were alive.

My Grandfather came to me after he passed and my proof is through my story of experience. Do you believe me? Would you if more than 500 witnessed
such?

There are millions! who claim ET's have abducted them. Do you believe them?

Stories just won't cut it in the scientific world. The ones who say they have been abducted may have proof on their person and even still will be
discredited as delusional.

If we go to archeology findings in regards to the tomb they found in recent years, we are still waiting on the DNA evidence for further testing but
don't you think if it is Jesus tomb it's odd they found bones in them when it was said to be empty? More findings are sure to come, I believe.

How can you tell every single person who disagrees with you they have come to a-priori conclusions or are making a-priori statements? Have you even
considered you are wrong? Have you even considered anyone to have done more research than you?

I hate to break it to you, but you're not saying anything original. Nothing you can say is going to be original in regards to this subject, unless you
have uncovered actual proof (I.e. you've found a body or something), and not just another theory.

I applaud your vigor, I really do, but it seems to me you just want to be "right." you don't want to discuss this at all.

My dad was a minister so I know the many stories of the New Testament.

I believe ( not proof though) Jesus spirit ( not body) rose after the third day to people, both believers and non believers.

The proof you speak of are stories though, nothing more.

In a court of law there may be stories that can prove one way or another but scientifically speaking there is zero proof unless you go by accounts of
nde or obe or anything else that is considered paranormal and even then cannot prove or disprove Jesus spirit was shown waaaaay back in a day none of
us were alive.

My Grandfather came to me after he passed and my proof is through my story of experience. Do you believe me? Would you if more than 500 witnessed
such?

There are millions! who claim ET's have abducted them. Do you believe them?

Stories just won't cut it in the scientific world. The ones who say they have been abducted may have proof on their person and even still will be
discredited as delusional.

If we go to archeology findings in regards to the tomb they found in recent years, we are still waiting on the DNA evidence for further testing but
don't you think if it is Jesus tomb it's odd they found bones in them when it was said to be empty? More findings are sure to come, I believe.

Thank you for your reply. LOL to me the only thing a computer is good for nothing but games and internet! But alas...
The Christian concept of the Resurrection is physical. In other words, what went into the tomb, is what came out.

As for science, science has little to do with history. For example, you cannot prove, using the scientific method, that Abraham Lincoln was president
of the U.S. You have to rely on written documents and even then you have to weigh their reliability concerning the story in question.

As for ET abduction. I do believe them. Many, if not most are ordinary people. Not delusional, drugged out etc. However, personally I do not believe
that they were ET's, but something else.

As for your grandfather, if I found that you were not mentally unstable, that you had no real motive for expecting him to appear, etc, since I do not
discount the supernatural, I would have no problem in believing you, and more witnesses the better!

As for the tomb, I believe you are referring to the Talpiot tomb. Which is not recent discovery, but was discovered in the '80s. However, there are
so many problems with the tomb being that of Jesus that even the original archeologist that discovered the tomb states that it is impossible that it
is Jesus'. As for DNA, in order to prove that it was indeed Jesus' tomb, (Not to mention the tomb is located in the wrong place) there is no way to
prove using DNA (unless we have a living relative of Jesus of the Bible to extract DNA) that those are the trace evidence of Jesus of the Bible.

How can you tell every single person who disagrees with you they have come to a-priori conclusions or are making a-priori statements? Have you even
considered you are wrong? Have you even considered anyone to have done more research than you?

I hate to break it to you, but you're not saying anything original. Nothing you can say is going to be original in regards to this subject, unless you
have uncovered actual proof (I.e. you've found a body or something), and not just another theory.

I applaud your vigor, I really do, but it seems to me you just want to be "right." you don't want to discuss this at all.

edit on 20-8-2012 by
mkmasn because: (no reason given)

I absolutely do consider I may be wrong. That is why I weigh the evidence in question. Jesus never said you have to commit intellectual suicide in
order to believe, in fact the opposite.

If you read my posts, I state that it sounds like you are making a-priori statements/conclusions. I say that from experience. Usually, when
someone says that there is absolutely NO evidence for the existence of Jesus for example, when it comes time to debate, they fall apart when presented
with the evidence. Now that may not be the case here, BUT, like I said, it sounds like it. In fact, I even asked repeatedly if the people making such
conclusions if they weighed the evidence that exists.

In our case, I was the only person that wanted to have a real debate on the issue (in an actual debate forum) and I have recently posted yet another
request to do so! I was the one that started this thread in the first place. You are the one that pretty much remained silent (oh yeah, you said
"prove it") throughout the entire debate. Then tried to have me pretty much censored, then accused me of personal attacks!

How can you tell every single person who disagrees with you they have come to a-priori conclusions or are making a-priori statements? Have you even
considered you are wrong? Have you even considered anyone to have done more research than you?

I hate to break it to you, but you're not saying anything original. Nothing you can say is going to be original in regards to this subject, unless you
have uncovered actual proof (I.e. you've found a body or something), and not just another theory.

I applaud your vigor, I really do, but it seems to me you just want to be "right." you don't want to discuss this at all.

edit on 20-8-2012 by
mkmasn because: (no reason given)

I absolutely do consider I may be wrong. That is why I weigh the evidence in question. Jesus never said you have to commit intellectual suicide in
order to believe, in fact the opposite.

If you read my posts, I state that it sounds like you are making a-priori statements/conclusions. I say that from experience. Usually, when
someone says that there is absolutely NO evidence for the existence of Jesus for example, when it comes time to debate, they fall apart when presented
with the evidence. Now that may not be the case here, BUT, like I said, it sounds like it. In fact, I even asked repeatedly if the people making such
conclusions if they weighed the evidence that exists.

In our case, I was the only person that wanted to have a real debate on the issue (in an actual debate forum) and I have recently posted yet another
request to do so! I was the one that started this thread in the first place. You are the one that pretty much remained silent (oh yeah, you said
"prove it") throughout the entire debate. Then tried to have me pretty much censored, then accused me of personal attacks!

edit on 21-8-2012
by bibledefender because: (no reason given)

You're right, I said "prove it," giving you ample time to make your case.

But what's in the past is in the past.

Like I told you before, it sounds like you have come to your conclusion based on educating yourself, which is good. But when you tell everyone who
disagrees with you they are making statements or conclusions without weighing the facts, you are making yourself sound as if you're the only one with
the right answer.

If you can't tell, even the most educated scholars of our time (and time prior, for that matter) can not conclusively say the resurrection did, or
even probably happened. Why? Because it is all circumstantial evidence, which cannot be proved either way.

It all comes down to faith. And we've heard it a million times: "My God is the one true God." Yet, when it comes down to it, those that make the claim
cannot, and will not be able to prove it outside of their respective holy books.

Had your title and claim been, "The resurrection is historically possible" as opposed to "...historically probable," I would have agreed
with you. It is possible Jesus existed and was resurrected. That is a true statement. But probable is completely
inaccurate.

prob·a·ble/ˈpräbəbəl/
Adjective:
Likely to be the case or to happen.

As I've already said, there are three possibilities:
1. Jesus existed and was resurrected.
2. Jesus existed and was not resurrected.
3. Jesus never existed.

That means there is a 1 in 3 chance Jesus was resurrected. That's not probable. Not to mention, out of the billions, if not hundreds of billions of
people who have existed on this earth, there are only a handful of documented resurrections, most of which have been debunked by science. That
eliminates probable from our vocabulary on this issue.

I was going to say change your verbiage, and I think you'll do fine in your debate, but I found your exact debate from a year ago on debate.org, where
the guy who you debated and I basically said the same thing: your sources are not proof, and the burden of proof lies in your hands.

If I could just clarify a point arising, and that has to do with interpreting the word "probable" as a literal judgment of probability, used as a
measure of credibility.

Just because there are three logical possibilities does not mean that the probability of each must be one third. All that personal probability
assessments ever can be is consistent. For example, it is entirely possible to believe that is more likely than not that Jesus existed (perhaps 55%,
say), and to believe that it is one in a billion that anybody spontaneously resurrected, and that the two assessments are independent of each other
(so I can multiply them).

So, for a person making those assessments, Jesus existed and did not rise is just about 55%, Jesus existed and did rise is slightly more than one in
two billion, and that Jesus didn't exist is about 45%.

What a probability value does not say is the basis for assessing those numbers. Suppose that these numbers represent the views of somebody who really
hasn't looked into much evidence, but maybe just thinks "Everybody talks about Jesus, so there must be some reason to think he existsed," and "If he
did rise spontaneously, he'd be the only one ever." Those are a priori statements. That's just fine, by the way.

Could one in two billion ever rise to or above fify-fifty? Yes, as I said in my previous post. For this post's numbers, accumulate some evidence that
is about a billion times more likely to be seen if Jesus rose from the dead than to be seen if he did not rise from the dead. In other words, find
evidence that collectively is roughly as startling as finding out for sure that somebody (anybody) did rise spontaneously after really being dead.

So, simply starting with something outrageously unlikely does not "eliminate probable from our vocabulary on this issue." It just means that the
evidence which offsets the initial improbability must be outrageously unlikely if the thing is false. (The story of Alexander the Great is fabulously
unlikely if all you know is that the story is told, but the story is confidently believed because a mountain of evidence says it really happened, and
wouldn't exist if it didn't happen.)

I don't doubt that bibledefender can muster somewhat favorable evidence for the Resurrection. Even before you found his earlier debates, I could see
that when he was arguing here with you, he was using a schema that other apologists use. I am very confident, then, that he does not have
billion-to-one evidence to present. I'm a little bit more confident about that now that you've found his own personal work in actual recent
competition.
-

I also have numerous debate on onlinedebate.net as well as theologyweb.org and one on Richard Dawkins' site against Steven Carr. I use this
argument because I think it is a good argument and have as yet heard a good refutation of it. Nothing wrong in that.

I use this argument because I think it is a good argument and have as yet heard a good refutation of it.

Well, that depends on the resolved, doesn't it?

I notice in your various debates about the resurrection tha mskmasn found, the difference from one debate to the next was in how the standard of
credibility was described.

One of them was whether it was "reasonable" to believe. Well, yes, you state a reason and you don't contradict yourself. That's it, that's all that
reasonableness requires. Win for bibledefender. Your argument cannot be refuted, because having any argument at all meets the standard.

"Probable" to believe? That could mean one of several things. Better than fifty-fifty? As we've already seen, you really don't have evidence where:

You might win a specific debate on that standard, but that wouldn't make it so. You cannot "be refuted" because the argument is insufficient whether
it's refuted or not.

On the other hand, for some people "probable" can mean as little as "there is a serious possibility, more than a scrupulous logical probability, that
it happened." If that's the standard, then you probably win, for pretty much the same reason you win on "reasonable."

Or maybe yours is the most probable "simple" hypothesis, which, if there are lots of competing simple hypotheses, may mean a win at a level of
credibility far below 50-50.

In this thread, you modified "probable" with the word "historically." That suggests a "best explanation," which can depend on more factors besides
credibility, like the variety of things it explains (not just the probability contrast), or "leverage," explaining many things with few assumptions.

It's kind of like those beauty contests where not only does somebody win first prize, but four more women are "runners up," somebody wins in each
stage of the competition (swinmuit, gown, interview, dance ...) and somebody is "Miss Congeniality." If there are enough different ways to win
something, then there's just that much better chance that any given contestant will win something.

I think your argument is Miss Congeniality, maybe swimsuit, too. It will win sometimes, and it ought to win when it meets the announced standard for
credibility or quality of support. It's not going to meet fifty-fifty, though, which is a pretty mild standard.

And here's why I am confident that it's never going to meet fifty-fifty. To meet fifty-fifty, there can be no competing hypothesis of higher initial
probability that explains the evidence equally well. Given the low initial probability of your hypothesis, and that's the point, that it would be a
miracle if it were true, even an outrageously speculative story might serve.

For example, Bart Ehrman improvised a fabulously unlikely story which is nevertheless more likely a priori than resurrection, that explained
the "five facts" type evidence equally well. As Richard Carrier, Ehrman's enemy, pointed out, all you need for facts 2-5 in your system is that the
surviving disciples believe that Jesus rose, whether he actually did or not.

Ehrman simply imagines that somebody else stole the body over the weekend. A Roman patrol intercepts two guys running through the streets of Jerusalem
with the corpse. I'll depart from Ehrman's version, which is unnecessarily complicated. The perps drop the corpse and run. The patrol tosses the
corpse, obviously an executed crminal's, onto the town garbage heap, where such corpses belong. Nobody tells the disciples anything, and the rest, as
they say, is history.

What are the chances of that? I don't know, but it wouldn't be a miracle if it were true. It is more likely a priori than your hypothesis,
which we agree would be a miracle if it were true.
-

Probable simply means more likely than not. Trying to put a number value on any historical hypothesis is problematic. Because it is completely
subjective. One person might put the initial probability at .0000000001% while another might put it at 98%. That is why historians do not use things
like Bayes' Theorem. Historically there are guidelines for determining whether a hypothesis is more probable than a competing one. It is called
argument to the best explaination, which I outlined in my opening statement. The hypothesis that takes into account more of the accepted facts than
its competitors is the one that is probably correct as stated in my opening statement. For example, take the stolen body theory and compare it to the
resurrection theory. Does the stolen body theory account for the five facts? It accounts for the death and burial of Jesus, and it tries to account
for the empty tomb. However, it fails to account for the disciples' sincere belief that the had physical experiences with a risen Jesus. It also
fails to account for Paul's conversion, as well as James'. Not only that but there is no historical that anyone stole the body. So, now what you
have to do is propose another reason to explain why the disciples really believed that they had experiences of the risen Jesus, why Paul suddenly
converted, why James' converted. So now you are piling one theory upon another, which is ad hoc reasoning. That is why this theory, according to
Schweitzer lists no supporters of the fraud theories for over a century since 1778!

The resurrection theory explains all of the facts without having recourse to ad-hoc reasoning. Therefore, according to historical guidelines, the
resurrection wins out. Hence, the resurrection probably happened. It that is the case, then Christianity is probably true and it is reasonable to
believe in it.

Probable simply means more likely than not. Trying to put a number value on any historical hypothesis is problematic.

Thank you for clarifying how you use the word probable. Fortunately, there is a well developed theory of qualitative probability, which can
deal with non-numeric expressions of belief like "more likely than not." Historians need not self-consciously "use" Bayes' theory, because common
sense reasoning about evidence spontaneously complies with it.

The non-numeric theories respond to evidence very similarly to the numeric ones. "Back of the envelope" calculations, like those which I have
presented in my posts, are fair indicators, and fair illustrations, of what quality of evidence is needed.

So, regardless of numbers:

* the evidence that promotes an initially disfavored hypothesis to "more likely than not" must be as "starttling" if the hypothesis is false as
the hypothesis itself was before the evidence was seen.

* for a hypothesis to be more likely than not, there can be no incompatible hypothesis which is more likely.

* if two hypotheses fit the evidence equally well, then the more credible hypothesis before the evidence is seen is still the more credible hypothesis
afterwrads

These qualitative principles are the ones I have used. Applied to your miracle, nothing happened which would be especially startling to someone who
didn't believe that Jesus rose from the dead. There are other hypotheses which are more likely than miracles and which fit the evidence equally well.
They were more credible than the miracle before the evidence was taken into account, and so they remain more credible afterwards.

I'll offer some specific surrebuttal, but with the objection that you keep moving the goal posts. The resurrection-and-ascension is a theory only
about the final dispostion of the body. It does not, in itself, explain witnesses' later behavior, but only plays a role within such explanations, in
concert with additional assumptions. A competing theory need only account for the dispostion of the body while playing a similar role in explanations
of other people's behavior.

However, it fails to account for the disciples' sincere belief that the had physical experiences with a risen Jesus.

All theories have the limitation that the disciples did not much challenge the physicality of their experiences, and their expereinces'
"physicality" includes Jesus walking through locked doors, being unrecognized at close quarters, and of course flying away into the sky, never (yet)
to return. No theory about the final disposition of the body can account for the disciples' cherry-picking the after-Easter evidence in order to
arrive at the conclusions they supposedly did.

It also fails to account for Paul's conversion, as well as James'.

Neither Paul nor James is depicted as having had an unambiguously physical encounter with the risen Jesus. Luke tells us that Paul's vision occurred
after Jesus had ascended, and that whatever Paul saw was in the sky. The actual disposition of the physical body, then, is irrelevant to these
events.

Please recall that in my first post in the thread, I pointed out that Paul made no radical change in his views. He was a Pharisee, he believed in
end-times bodily resurrection, and realized that the Jesus resurrection story was consistent with his existing beliefs. What would need explanation is
why Paul hadn't realized this sooner, not that he finally figured it out.

That is why this theory, according to Schweitzer lists no supporters of the fraud theories for over a century since 1778!

I didn't propose a fraud theory. Straw man.

The resurrection theory explains all of the facts without having recourse to ad-hoc reasoning.

Say what? Your explanation is that an event unprecedented in human history, whose like has yet to occur ever again, happened once, just in time to
motivate the founders of your church. That is exactly ad hoc reasoning.

Hey there, again according to historical methods, as historian C. Behan McCullagh says in his book Justifying Historical Descriptions:

If the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing
explanation, then it is likely to be true.

Now I never said that you put forth the theft theory. However you did put forth what Erhman said and adjusted it a little.

Paul, as you admit was a Pharisee, which believed in a physical resurrection at the end of history. However, it still remains, why did he give up
being a Pharisee (who denied Jesus was the Christ) and believe in the bodily resurrection? Likewise James? And according to NT Wright's landmark
study on the use of resurrection in ancient culture (Jewish, Roman an Helenistic). They all believed that if a resurrection occured, it would be
physical. However, Helenistic as well as Roman believed it doesn't occur. One descends to the underworld. So, when Paul says that Jesus was
resurrected, he means physically. Also, because there were visionary elements to Paul meeting Jesus, it doesn't stand that is all it was. For
example, his traveling companions also saw light, heard the voice. So it wasn't just a subjective vision. That and together he himself stated about
the nature of Jesus' resurrection, he most definately did believe it was physical. Even in Acts, Jesus' ascension was a physical one. As you admit,
Paul, as a Pharisee, did believe in an end-time resurrection of everyone. However, he didn't expect a resurrection to happen in the middle of
history. Other than that, Paul DID make radical change in his views, for he considered Jesus God, and that he did resurrect physically.

So the question remains, why did Paul, a Phairsee and persecuter of the early church, suddenly convert? Why did the disciples sincerely believe that
he had physically rose from the tomb? Why did James, a skeptic before Jesus' crucifixion, suddenly become a leader of the Christian church?. And if
you put forth a subjective vision hypothesis, that doesn't account for the empty tomb. So now you have to come up with something that accounts for
that as well, that is ad hoc reasoning, because now you are piling one theory on top of another theory in order to explain the facts. The resurrection
is not ad hoc since it answers all of the facts at hand without piling one on top of another in order to explain the facts.

You seem to be taking the writings of Paul as fact when that is not possible. It is not even certain that half of the writing attributed to Paul was
even written by him.

The writings of Paul that describe Jesus are very dubious so I would cast them aside and dismiss them as they cannot be considered reliable evidence.

First, for example, no one doubts that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans etc. In 1 Corinthians Paul himself wrote why he himself converted.
Even atheistic scholars admit to the value of Paul's writtings and do not discount that he wrote them. Seven letters are generally classified as
“undisputed”, expressing contemporary scholarly near consensus that they are the work of Paul: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians,
1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.

How can you be so sure that what Paul wrote was true though, there is no corresponding evidence and common sense, logic and rational thought dictates
that it is completely false or at best exaggerated.

Don't you ever feel that you're devoting too much of yourself to very uncertain and dubious writings that go back 2000 years or so.

You seem to forget that 2000 years ago peoples intellect was vastly inferior to ours today. Then why believe that what they wrote is true when there
is nothing to back it up?

How can you be so sure that what Paul wrote was true though, there is no corresponding evidence and common sense, logic and rational thought dictates
that it is completely false or at best exaggerated.

Don't you ever feel that you're devoting too much of yourself to very uncertain and dubious writings that go back 2000 years or so.

You seem to forget that 2000 years ago peoples intellect was vastly inferior to ours today. Then why believe that what they wrote is true when there
is nothing to back it up?

edit on 29-8-2012 by GafferUK1981 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-8-2012 by GafferUK1981
because: (no reason given)

As a matter of evidence, i only use that which are agreed to by both sides. I never said that the resurrection is true because Paul said so. However,
he does say that he was a persecuter of the church, and that he suddenly converted. No one doubts that. He also gives a list of what he and the other
disciples believed in in 1 Cor 15. Also just because a text is old, it doesn't stand that it is automatically false. That is a logical fallacy.
Again, read my first post and it will tell you why I believe in the resurrection. Who says that their intellect was inferior to ours? Again another
logical fallacy.

Of course their intellect was inferior to ours, look how developed they were and how they lived.

I believe in accumulated knowledge and without doubt we have more now than they did then. We tend to actually live now and prosper, the truth is back
then they basically survived and got by.

But what you are implying is that people were so stupid back then that they didn't know how to tell the difference between fact and fiction.
According to that line of thinking, we should throw out all of ancient history. As far as people just barely getting by, just look at today, there
are people today, that are just surviving. And this doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Paul, once a persecutor of the early church,
suddenly converted.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.